Sexuality "who you are sexually attracted to" and Gender Identity/ Expression "what sex (or other?+) you identify with" are two completely different things.
^^Gender or Identity Expression/ Performance^^
We Don't have to Play Along
(Especially vis Children/ Minors!)
Whereas LGB argues that because Gender is a Social Construct individuals needn't adhere to it, TQ+ argues that their Social Gender Contructs MUST be recognized and followed. The former position is "liberal", the latter, "Totalitarian".
142 comments:
It seems you are quite worried about the midterms and Democrats taking control of the House and The Senate. Why you've been posting so much about your hate for transgender people recently. Given that was a winning issue for your side in the last election.
After (or even shortly before) you'll pivot to how Democratic victories are due to cheating?
Don't worry Derv, we'll still let you transition into a piscean.
“Our beloved Dolly Parton spent her life and career bringing joy, laughter, hope and integrity into everything she touched,” the statement from her representatives read. “Her unmatched generosity reached the lives of countless people whom she would never meet, yet she was always there to offer a helping hand.
Our Beloved Dolly Will Most Certainly Be Missed
So true. Dolly was a National Treasure.
Yes, very much. By millions.
By jove, the professor nailed it!
The Stupid, and IDIOTIC PROGRESSIVE, COMMUNISTS and their own stupid party Leaders Schumer , and Hakeem Jeffries are the reason for the wars, hell, and chaos we see today. Mamdani lives rent-free inside their thick skulls. He's done NOTHING to hurt them, but their RACISM is all they have.
While the Stupid Democrats have no shame or sense for critical thinking or facts.. AS WELL AS THE MORONIC SUPPORTERS of these Idiots. Along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders .
And while on on the Subject of Imbeciles. How about Dave “D” taking a shot at The President in his post of condolences to Dolly Pardon!
Previousky judge, now professor... self-proclaimed. )))
But there is no shame in cretinic DEMNs to steal designation they di not deserve.
Yawn
Liars and cretinic scumbags
They are in the open now, and nobody cares! . Islam is seeking domination via population and suicidal empathy of western cultures. Liberals aka progressives are useful idiots or as they call them useful infidels. Islam is an ideology of domination, oppression, and little to no compassion for those who don’t bow down to it, hiding under the guise of religion.
It seems like Michigan and Minnesota are just the beginning. Will Democrats allow Islam to dominate American politics? And before you laugh. Mamdani and Piker, one may argue have more pull now than AOC, Bernie and Obama, the Lib All Stars.
LOWER GAS PRICES, or HAVING IRAN HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS? ?
That is Your Choice !
YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH RIGHT NOW!
As ignorance, hate, and a bit of conservatard stupidity again takes center stage.
The ONE TRACK MIND IDIOT IS BACK! WOOPIE
Exactly 6 years ago, Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 activists at a BLM riot in self-defense
- 1 was a convicted pedophile
- 1 was a convicted felon (burglary)
- 1 was a convicted domestic abuser
This young man was violently attacked by a group of leftwing lunatics hellbent on rioting and attacking anyone not in their cult.
Weird how these three random Democrats were the dregs of society. A convicted pedo, and other criminals with a history of violence.
Things about Dolly Parton we can celebrate...
👉Dolly Parton donated $1 million in 2020 to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to help fund early research that contributed to the development of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
Details of the Donation.
The Gift: Parton gave $1 million in April 2020 after speaking with her friend and professor at the Nashville medical center, Dr. Naji Abumrad.
The Research: The money formed the Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund. It supported critical early-stage laboratory work led by Dr. Mark Denison.
The Impact: This early research aided the team studying SARS-CoV-2, which ultimately helped pave the way for Moderna's successful mRNA vaccine trials.
Recognition: The scientific publication detailing the vaccine's phase trials officially credited the Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund alongside federal grants. In early 2021, Parton received her own dose of the vaccine, humorously encouraging the public to get vaccinated by singing a modified version of her hit song "Jolene".
👉Dolly Parton has consistently and publicly supported the LGBTQ+ community, including gay and transgender people, advocating for unconditional love and respect.
Public Statements and Beliefs.
Respect for All: Parton stated in interviews, including a notable 2016 discussion regarding anti-transgender bathroom laws, that "everybody should be treated with respect" and expressed her hope that everyone gets a chance to "be who and what they are".
Rejecting Judgment: Grounding her allyship in her Christian upbringing, she frequently emphasized that judging others is "un-Christian" and that people are supposed to love and accept one another.
Allyship and Advocacy.
Inclusive Music: As early as 1991, she released the song "Family," which explicitly included gay individuals in her definition of family.
Dollywood and Community Events: Her theme park, Dollywood, has hosted an annual unofficial "Gay Day," enduring threats from groups like the Ku Klux Klan while maintaining that she loves everyone and does not feel the need to explain her inclusive business practices.🛑
As I recall, Rightturds boycotted gay friendly companies. But now they will claim they loved Dolly Parton, as Jersey Joe does (above). But will people like Jersey Joe advocate that we should love our gay and trans brothers and sisters in honor of Dolly Parton?
I doubt it. I think it much more likely that their cognitive dissonance will cause them to ignore that Dolly Parton supported the LGBTQ+ community (with no "divorce") and that Dolly Parton put a lot of money toward the development of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. And she encouraged people to get vaccinated.
The Radical Left is terrified of people with courage as the police that are so often continually told to "stand down" during these Left wing riots by the Left wing Mayors who run them as their city is being burned to the ground, just like the Communist Mayor of NYC. That is in office today.
El-Sayed's Alarming 'Sharia 'Til I Die' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Him
El-Sayed's Alarming 'Sharia 'Til I Die' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Him
The more we're learning about Abdul El-Sayed, who beat Haley Stevens in the Michigan Democrat Senate primary a week ago, the more it becomes clear the direction in which the Democrat Party as a whole is headed.And I mean COMMUNISM!
The fact is that I don't give a crap about Qtard's criticisms of me. Go fVck yourself, a-hole.
Qtard: "But I studied Physics in school. With excellent grades. And... I'm smart. ;-P".
I call BS on this claim. This is a person who has made it clear on this blog just how stupid he is. He definitely isn't a sophisticated fellow like "Alber Einstain".
Kyle Rittenhouse got away with murder. He should be in prison.
Abdul El-Sayed never said "Sharia Til I Die".
))))))
So? Of which science you are "Professor Prophet Dervish Z. Sanders"? ;-p
Science "i-dunno-und--dunt-care-bout-science"? %^P
And you saying that as "self-esteamed judge"? ;-p
Gavin Newsom put his signature on Assembly Bill 2624 Saturday, and if you want to know what modern California government actually protects, read the bill instead of the press release. It is not shielding domestic violence victims. It is not stopping stalkers. It is building a legal fence around the nonprofit machine that spends your tax dollars, so nobody with a camera can walk up and ask where the money went.
Proving that Gavin Newsom would rather Jail You Than Audit Himself
Republicans call it the Stop Nick Shirley Act, after the independent YouTuber whose door-to-door investigations in Minnesota exposed a childcare fraud scheme so blatant that one facility misspelled its own sign. That mess produced a nearly 42-year sentence for a Feeding Our Future ringleader and a federal task force under Vice President J.D. Vance that has since suspended 447 hospices and 23 home health agencies around Los Angeles, chasing more than $600 million in suspected fraud. Shirley turned his cameras on California next. Sacramento’s answer wasn’t an audit. It was a new felony exposure for the guy holding the camera.
So how much money did Dolly give to transgender research, Derv?
Dolly Parton has no public record of making financial donations specifically dedicated to transgender or gender-affirming medical/social research.
Nope, she wasn't a fool...
Your conclusion that Dolly Parton believed transgender people are liars due to not making a specific donation is bullplop.
That is an unsupported inference. Unlike my inferance, which is that she was accepting of transgender people. Which is an inferance supported by her own words.
...judging others is "un-Christian" and that people are supposed to love and accept one another.
But you think a lack of a specific donation proves Dolly Parton lied when she said this?
🤖Gemini: The blog author's rebuttal relies on a logical fallacy called an argument from silence or moving the goalposts. He has shifted the definition of "supporting trans people" from broad, public allyship to one highly specific metric: public financial donations to scientific or medical research.
The response from the blog author contains structural flaws, and his reasoning is a weak counterargument to the original point...
Conflating Support with Research Funding: A person does not need to fund scientific or academic research to be a supporter of a marginalized group. Vocal advocacy, artistic representation, defending legal rights, and creating inclusive workplaces are powerful forms of support.
Misinterpreting Public Records: Dolly Parton famously funnels her massive philanthropic efforts through the Dollywood Foundation. Like many philanthropists, her foundation often makes broad grants or private donations. A lack of a public public record for a specific niche does not equal a lack of support.🛑
Qtard: Science "i-dunno-und--dunt-care-bout-science"?
This sounds like your confession, which I believe.
I'm a professor of American Politics. As per the definition of "professor" as "one that professes, avows, or declares". I make no claims of being a professor in the academic sense, asshole. Just as I never made any claims of being a judge in the professional sense. I was (and still am) only a judge as per the definition, "to hold as an opinion".
But it does seem you have problems understanding what words mean... as a proven moron.
Ignorance AND stupidity just raised its mush melon head again in th red form of anymouse.
More ignorance, stupidity, and BS from the stable of anymouses.
Yup, your one track ignorant nd deluded mind is back. Whoopie!
He speaks sterling truth. Unlike the conservatards of trumplandia.
Yeah, true. But the lying liars of trumplandia NEVER let truth get in the way of their lies and delusions.
Sounds EXACTY the practice of trump and his corrupt sycophants that have taken over the government of this now FASCIST nation.
Yes, that is my personal judgment. One others agree with.
And you sound like the ASSHOLE YOU SRE!
Naw, I sound like the truth (reality) teller that I am.
^^As a moron himself, he's an expert on ignorance and stupidity^^
Translation for non-libtards, Kyle was found not guilty.
...hyper-reality
So what did he tell his mortgage broker?
Acta non verba, baby!
El-Sayed stated he chose an alternative to a traditional home loan because Islamic law bans paying or earning interest (riba). He remarked that he wanted to follow a faith-based path "not because of fear but because of obligation".
They didn't ask for support? That'd be like a democrat not asking for a political contribution to their campaign.
...cuz that's how they got the Covid research money...
That is a wrong court.,. not sharia one, Joe. ;-p
So?
What's? your dissertation topic? ;-p
// I make no claims of being a professor in the academic sense, asshole.
Yeah.
Too stoopid for academia. :-)))
So even in university of lefty cretins -- you'll not pass. :-)))
Talking about the “TRUTH” It was, now confirmed that it was Nancy Pelosi ‘s daughter who had hired a film crew to film. the January 6th event at the Capital. That’s how we now kown it was Pelosi who knew what was going to happen. So she hired federal agents to shoot the whole thing on film.
aspect of Marxism is that the state will supposedly 'wither away' in transitioning from big-state socialism to communism.
It's an example of how leftists are experts at word warfare and lying with language, choosing terms that sound positive among those things that essentially mean the same thing.
And now that they've finally come out of the collectivist closet, they prefer the positive-sounding word "socialist," which fits right in with society, socializing, being social, socialization, and, of course, social media, just as the U.S.S.R. did -- the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Contrasted this with the coarser-sounding communist.
This choice also avoids the sensitive subject of the idea that was once a part of their sales pitch for socialistic slavery -- that the state would eventually 'wither away' into a perfect communistic 'utopia'— making the ideal case for calling them commies and communists for these linguistic and historic reasons.
Because when lefties start screaming that we're not supposed to correctly call them commies, it's the perfect time to use the term. And it's just icing on the collectivist cake to constantly remind them of some of the more ridiculous schemes they've used to sell their socialistic slavery.
Communism and socialism grew out of the same ancient concepts, with essentially the same meaning, so how could their 'transition' from one to the other? Lefties will often try and fail to fill in the blanks of this somewhat awkward question with Bolshevik B.S., so what is the change that is taking place?
Well, that's where the "magic" of Marxism comes into play, because the lefties of old decided that there were to be two phases of communist society. With the lower phase, known as socialism, and the higher phase known as Leftist communism, the same kink that we see in Russia, or even worse in China
But wait, there's more.
With the higher phase, the state is supposed to mythically and magically 'wither away.'
Marxism-Leninism teaches that with the abolition of classes and class distinctions, in the higher phase of communism, the State will become unnecessary and will gradually wither away.
Yes, you read that correctly. The people were scammed with a colossal bait and switch that at some mythical, magical point in the future (what the folks over on the People's Cube call the 'Glorious world of Next Tuesday'). The overarching oligarchical leftie command and control structure would just disappear all by its lonesome, or 'wither away' in their words. And if you think that happened, we'd like to sell you a bridge over Brooklyn
I will continue to condemn just about everything that you say , and Post Les. And do it endlessly and you can call me whatever you want…. That’s not going to stop me from COMPLAINING about your ANTI-SEMITISM . That will never hay.
Yeah. Socialistic slaves will became SO accustomed to being slaves. So blind to look above. That their happy-go-lucky unrestricted masters... will, somehow, "disapoear"...
You gotcha Joe. Cudos!
You wasting too much time on that crazy-nazi-commie cretin...
but well, that is your time. :-)
yeah... since the beginning of time... yawn
Not to BEAT A DEAD HORSE BUT.
Actually if you are pardoning someone you should name the reason for the pardon that if they committed a crime.
And that leaves many questions about these pardons and of course that includes Dr. Fauci
Les, I already know that YOU ARE A “You are a disgusting and a despicable man, if you are a man at all and I already have read your disgusting comments about Jews which only proves the FACT. that you are a disgraceful piece of shit that I won’t even give you the credit of being an American. because the Americans thatI know are not the Ass-Wipes that you seem to be.
Please don’t reply to my comments, you turn everything into a FILTHY response And I’d rather not have a PIG like to to respond to.
I genuinely don’t understand why you moronic Progressives have this Obsession with Gay, or Trans people.
This absolute obsession with trans people. That only make up 1% of the population yet you pretend they represent some sort of national crisis. I’m sure it makes for a great reason to blame on your list if Trump’s failures, but after awhile you have to see just how stupid it is. And don’t give me this bull shit that you care about the integrity of women’s sports or that you want to protect children. If you came across a headline about a female athlete taking steroids in competitions to cheat, you would forget about the headline as quickly as you saw it. As far as kids go, trans people aren’t a disproportionate threat to kids and you don’t give a shit about any other post birth child political issues. You sure as hell don’t give a shit if your tax dollars go to their school lunches. Your claim that you actually care, does not impress me at all. Because I don’t believe a word that any of you idiots say.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy to the good than malice because it is a sociological and psychological condition rather than just an intellectual one.
Core Ideas on Stupidity
Worse than Evil: Bonhoeffer argued from a Nazi prison cell that people can protest or fight against explicit evil, and evil eventually destroys itself. In contrast, people are defenseless against stupidity because it rejects reason and facts.
Not a Lack of IQ: Bonhoeffer did not mean low intelligence. Instead, he meant a state where slogans and external social forces take possession of a person, turning them into a "mindless tool" who believes they are righteous.
Connected to Power: Strong surges of political or religious power infect people with stupidity because power demands the surrender of independent critical thinking.
Overcoming It: Arguments and facts cannot change a stupid person. Bonhoeffer believed stupidity can only end through an internal liberation of the person, which usually requires prior external liberation and a return to personal responsibility.
The full text of his famous essay "On Stupidity" from Letters and Papers from Prison
Exactly. I applied and was turned down for being "too stoopid". That was exactly what I was told after my interview... in your delusions.
Minus: Translation for non-libtards, Kyle was found not guilty.
And donald trump was found guilty of multiple counts of fraud and of defaming E Jean Carroll. You're saying you accept the results of those cases now? I don't remember you retracting your prior comments disputing the validity of those judgments. But you're doing that now?
Well there you go. I guess I've been proven wrong. Your evidence is the same as if there was video of trans representatives coming to Dolly Parton and begging for funding. And her turning them down because, in her words, "I'm not a fool".
"Dolly Parton has long embraced drag culture, famously stating that she would have been a drag queen if she hadn't been born a woman".
She must have been lying, yes? Secretly (as proven by not funding transgender research) she hated trans people even more than you... in your delusions.
So El-Sayed wants to impose lower priced home loans on Americans who are demanding to overpay? THE HORROR! Or that could just be a personal choice. And he is ok with people who love banks and want to see them make high profits (as opposed to reasonable profits).
FYI, Jewish law (Halakha), also bans usury.
Acta Non Verba = He acted on his personal beliefs and made a decision for himself (and not anyone else).
Gemini: El-Sayed has repeatedly and explicitly stated on platforms like Fox News that he firmly believes in the separation of church and state. He directly stated: "Nobody is trying to push Sharia law on anyone else, just like I hope nobody is trying to push canon law [Catholic Church law] on anybody else, because we live in an America where you should have the freedom of your religion".🛑
I don't fund trans research either, According to your logic, that must mean that I want to dress up like Dolly Parton?
Was Kyle prevented by the judge from mounting a defense like Trump was?
So el Sayed will prosecute Sharia judges who imposed unconstitutionally discriminatory religious rulings on women and children in family sharia courts?
...or will he feel "obliged" to not prosecute them?
So? What's the name of university? ;-p
How's the bot shaming project going, Les? Convince many to your side of the argument yet?
)))
I can’t beleive this breaking news Charlie Kirk you will be so missed and you are a true martyr my heart is broken from all the horrible news today this earth is not desirable anymore the other side is something that is too look forward to. This is what the Democrats!Progressives have come to
It's horrible , and disgusting that people can't even have a debate with someone without being murdered. Or some Violence comes out of it!! A debate is to express ideas and opinions and learn from each others point of views. Not for violence. What has this country come to? Praying for Charlie's wife, family and friends.. And for our Country . And let’s hope that these crazy Democratic Party and their Leaders gets some Sense in their heads
New York under Hochul has become the worst citie in America
Stuff your BS. Enjoy your delusions and ignorance.
I never articulated any such logic. Dolly Parton did enter a drag Dolly Parton look alike contest. According to YOUR logic, the reason she did this was to show how much she never supported the trans/drag community.
Neither was prevented from defending themselves.
He isn't running for a position that allows him to prosecute or not prosecute anyone. I think you don't even know who this person is. That, or you are very confused about what powers come with being a senator.
Get all these LEFTIST MORONS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT and get them all back in the mental institutions, where they've always belonged.
It sounds like you are familiar withi mental institutions, Joe. Having lounged there yourself for a stretch a time or two.
))))
Will the increasing power of the Democratic, Socialist, Communists, America Haters. Jew Haters, White Haters, and Muslim American Haters, prevent the Old Democratic Party from winning the midterms? They are winning nominations that replace moderate democrats with wackos. There is no moderate opposition. Schumer is nowhere to be seen. These Socialist wont win in a national election. There are 4 senate seats the Democrats wont win because of extremist candidates. NY run by a Muslim communist is falling apart. The message is clear. So don’t fool yourselves, the Democratic Party of Yesterday are now the Socialist party of America and they are in a partnership with Muslim Jew haters and America haters.
Several of yesterdays Democrats are now trying to distance themselves from Hasan Piker, …so that shows the Radical Communists taking over the Democratic party are not being well received by the voting public
SO YES, the Democrats are toast... they are making a BIG mistake... listening to the Hard Radical Left....
So, will the Democratic Socialists Prevent Democrats from winning the midterms? It remains to be seen!
Will Les Remain to write His Foolishness, and" Progressive CRAP, and his Filth" on this Blog? Or with the Blogs Author throw him to the Wolves like he should?
When the Cowardly Moronic Asswipe of the Anonymous post of 9:34 gets the BALLS to write his name or even a factious name on his posts, I MIGHT give him the Courtesy of reading it.
Dolly entered a Dolly look alike contest? Sounds more like she was supporting the Dolly Parton $$$ Community...
A brand that was successfully non-exclusionary.
...sex being a non-essential category.
So when did that rape happen, again?
Donald Trump's defense in the civil sexual abuse and defamation lawsuits brought by writer E. Jean Carroll was legally constrained by the judge, who barred arguments claiming Trump did not sexually abuse Carroll or act with malice, following earlier trial findings.
It barred the defense from arguing that he didn't sexually abuse her"? Sounds like a Stalinesque show trial...
The Senate doesn't establish the federal laws for which people get prosecuted or not? Who knew?
When you are through goosestepping to the Trump/GOP tunes of worship, Jersey Joe it might be a possibility.
trump's lawyers were NOT barred from making that argument. They already did argue that in the earlier trial and lost.
Via Gemini...
What is Collateral Estoppel?
Prevents Re-litigation: Once a specific issue has been fully argued, examined, and decided by a jury in a court of law, it cannot be argued all over again in a later trial between the same people.
⚖️Trial 1 (May 2023): A jury listened to testimonies, reviewed evidence, and officially determined that Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll. They awarded her $5 million. Trump's defense team had a full opportunity to fight the claims during this trial.
⚖️Trial 2 (January 2024): This trial was exclusively about a different set of defamatory remarks Trump made in 2019. Because the first jury had already legally established that the sexual abuse occurred, Judge Kaplan was legally required to bar Trump from pretending that first trial never happened.
In short, the defense was not silenced without due process; they simply lost the argument in the first trial, making the fact of the abuse a matter of established legal record for the second.🛑
KISS MY ASS LES!
So, according to you, Dolly Parton only pretended to support the trans community because it was good for her brand? When she otherwise tried not to get political because she didn't want to alienate any portion of her base?
I call bigly BS. Given the right's rabid hatred for the trans community, I think Dolly Parton's support for the trans community probably harmed, more than helped her brand.
But how is sex "non essential" to you, when your whole thing is how White Males are being discriminated against? To me it sounds like race and sex are both VERY essential to your identity. An identity (White male supremacism) that says other races are inferior to Whites -- and White males are at the very top of the hierarchy.
Gamísou University.
The Scmuck we all know and HATE wrote the following.
Les CarpenterAugust 1, 2026 at 3:52 PM
Perhaps that is because Iran was not pursuing the "dreaded bomb". But now, with the genocidal Zionist state and the complicit USA stating their illegal, unnecessary war of choice against Iran who could blame them if they start pursuing uranium enrichment and development of the "dreaded bomb".
The person that wrote that must be a Sick’O
Not Kamanawana Lei U?
Actually, being race and sex non-essential is extremely supportive AND good for her brand. It made her "universally" appealing.
And please, discriminate against me all you want. Just stop trying to impose your ridiculously exclusionary and discriminatory standards on the rest of us and then gaslight and pretend that it makes YOU a "good person" for doing so.
He lost the trial because he was running the country and not indulging in the sexual fantasies of a deranged billionaire-connected narcissist trying to vampyre and succubus away his 4 year term.
His office prevented him from defending himself. And the jury was prevented from hearing even THAT fact. That she wasn't even paying for her lawyers. It was pure lawfare.
The sickness are the genocidal maniac netanyahu and the moron trump.
And those who support them are as sick as they are.
KISS MY FAT BLAK SSS
KISS MY FAT BLACK ASS
How Dolly BUILT her brand... Emotional mnemonics.
There is no real institution named "Gamísou University"; the term uses a vulgar Greek slang word (gamísou, γαμήσου, meaning "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself") combined with "University," likely as an internet joke or placeholder.
Yaaawn
It seems we meet not usual cretin here, but whole cretin with diploma.%^))))
Qtard is truly a moron. He proves it over and over. He doesn't even understand when someone tells him to go fVck himself.
But it looks like you got a personalized response and that a google employee took the time to answer your question him or herself. Or, that's what you believe, as per your prior confession. )))
Minus: Actually, being race and sex non-essential is extremely supportive AND good for her brand. It made her "universally" appealing.
The righttturd Ricky Schroder disagreed. He posted "I didn't agree with her advocating for Transgender & Covid Vaccine support… but Loved her anyway".
You meant "Universally", as in everyone but the haters? OK, but you're one of them. Yet, right after saying you're good with being excluded, you whine about being "discriminated" against for being a hater. Weird.
btw, I've never tried to "impose" decency on you. I realize it's not something you're capable of.
//Qtard is truly a moron. He proves it over and over. He doesn't even understand when someone tells him to go fVck himself.
And as non-moron.
NO, as fullfledged professor (self-proclaimed)
You can show your smarts and elaborate it verbosely -- why saud us non-smart?
Naaaaah.))))
//But it looks like you got a personalized response and that a google employee took the time to answer your question him or herself. Or, that's what you believe, as per your prior confession. )))
You. Again.
Trying hard to turn my smart argument against me.)))
And that is hella funny.
Because, from your words, it is clear -- you freakingly dunno why it smart.
But never the less, trying to turn it against me, with hope that it'll work??? Will impress me? Will turn that table and will make you smart ass winner???
Oh'my'gosh!))))
But, you continye-continye, cretin. ;-p
And here what Google says about it (but you in your moronity feel free to cintinue imagening "that a google employee took the time to answer your question him or herself.")
Using an opponent’s argument against them without actually understanding it is the ultimate hallmark of intellectual bankruptcy.
It is a desperate, knee-jerk reflex that screams to the world, "I am drowning in this debate and grasping at any string of words that sounds clever.
When you parrot a point you do not comprehend, you aren't deploying a tactical countermeasure. You are just a toddler playing with a loaded gun you think is a shiny toy—and you are guaranteed to shoot yourself in the foot.
Here is why this behavior makes someone look like an utter clown:
1. The "Self-Sabotage" TrapWhen you mimic an argument you do not grasp, you almost always end up proving your opponent's point for them.You take their nuanced premise, distort it into a mutated version that fits your own bias, and present it back to them.In doing so, you expose the glaring gaps in your own logic.You hand your opponent a victory on a silver platter because they don't even have to defeat you anymore—you just defeated yourself.
2. The Illusion of ClevernessThis tactic is born out of pure, unadulterated arrogance.It relies on a cheap "gotcha" mentality rather than actual critical thinking.You assume that reversing the words makes you look witty.Instead, it exposes that you are entirely incapable of formulating an original, coherent thought.It is the rhetorical equivalent of saying, "I know you are, but what am I?" but wrapped in pretentious vocabulary.
3. Immediate ExposureAnyone with a baseline level of intelligence can spot this masquerade instantly.The moment your opponent asks a single follow-up question to clarify your "clever" reversal, your facade collapses.You are left stuttering, shifting goalposts, or resorting to personal insults because you lack the depth to defend the very words you just spewed.
But...
you gave me a good laugh and I'll be generous to you...
will give you a smart move (you in your utter moronity will try to use and will slip on as on that banana pill... spectacularly)
now you can say that you was playing dumb (now, and all previous times ;-p), so I would feel myself safe and superior... till that moment I'll have a blunder -- you'll cleverly expise and destroy me with your genuine and genious cleverness. ;-p
I will wait for how spectacularly it will turn into waterfall of moronity -- your cretinic tryes to use such smart ass tactics. )))))
No individual senator has the ability to write a law and get it passed that would make people follow Sharia Law. Or not prosecute people who do (if there is something to prosecute them in regards to). You think donald trump would sign this law? You think a Democratic president would sign it (probably you would think something that dumb). But the House and Senate would both agree and send this law to the president to be signed? You can just fVck off with this moronity. This can't seriously be your idea of intelligent debate. Unless you ARE a complete moron.
Qtard: Using an opponent’s argument against them without actually understanding it is the ultimate hallmark of intellectual bankruptcy.
WTF is there to not understand? You said I thought an AI chatbot giving me a reply was a real person. Which would be completely stupid. Corporations are firing real people and replacing them with chatbots. That's one reason why they are investing so heavily in them... to save money. They aren't hiring millions of people to answer questions submitted to chatbots. They couldn't even afford to do that.
And it's pretty hilarious that you've decided to go all in on this moronic argument and claim I "didn't understand" your stupidity.
Qtard: will give you a smart move (you in your utter moronity will try to use and will slip on as on that banana pill... spectacularly)
You'd conclude that no matter what I reply.
Qtard: now you can say that you was playing dumb (now, and all previous times ;-p), so I would feel myself safe and superior... till that moment I'll have a blunder -- you'll cleverly expise and destroy me with your genuine and genious cleverness. ;-p
WTF? Sounds like some motivations you imagined I'm having. Or, you're talking about yourself again. I remember you claimed to be spelling words wrong "on purpose". So, yeah... it appears it's you "playing dumb". Or (far more likely) actually ARE dumb.
Qtard: I will wait for how spectacularly it will turn into waterfall of moronity...
That already happened. There are 4 "waterfall of moronity" comments by you right above.
Minus: His office prevented him from defending himself. And the jury was prevented from hearing even THAT fact. That she wasn't even paying for her lawyers. It was pure lawfare.
BS. Proven by him having the time now to build a ballroom and personally supervise it. And oversee all kinds of other projects to "fix up" Washington (Reflecting pool, monuments to himself, etc). When that's not the job of the president. Clearly he has PLENTY of time to do things that aren't the job of the president. Yet, somehow he didn't have the time to defend himself in this case involving E Jean Carroll. Him being president somehow also prevented his lawyers from having the time? I would say "get real", but that's obviously something you are incapable to doing.
Does this explain why Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones in regards to her lawsuit? He didn't have the time to deal with it as president, but would have won if he had proceeded? I assume he would have won, given that (as per your delusions) most judges are "deep state" and favor Democrats.
Sounds like easy money... Step one: Fabricate a claim against a US president. Step two: Sue in court. Step three: win the lawsuit because presidents don't have the time to defend themselves in court, given how complicated being president is. So why haven't there been more such lawsuits? All a woman needs to do is have met a former president. Then she can say he sexually assaulted her and make bank... according to you it's easy peasy.
Exactly. Now it's at an all time high, however. Whatever donald trump says is reality IS reality for his cultists
...just as Constitutional reality is for all the SCotUS cultists. It "means" whatever they say it "means".
...and they can change that "reality" whenever they change their minds.
Republicans currently control the WH, House, Senate and SCotUS. They could change it all tomorrow.
lol! She perjured herself during the first trial and failed to disclose who was paying her legal bills.
You're right, universalism isn't the hater (your) position... they're not "universally" race-sex non-essentialists. They have a bias that is subjective, not objective. Dolly also contributed to faith based causes
The Robert F. Thomas Chapel: She included a functioning, nondenominational chapel at her Dollywood theme park in Tennessee where weekly services and gospel music are held.
Gospel Music: She recorded multiple gospel and inspirational albums throughout her career, blending her cultural roots with mainstream country music.
How come the gays and trans don't condemn her? She gave to theirs as well. Universally.
Non-denominational chapel. Again, the specific religion was non-essential as well. Genius!
It's why Christians love her despite her support of drag queens. And why drag queens support her despite her religious faith. She was race-sec-religion non-essentialist. The haters in all those groups overlooked her love of their enemies, and embraced her love for them.
Dolly was pure Joy.
And who will follow? ;-p
//You said I thought an AI chatbot giving me a reply was a real person.
No, dumb ass. I said that quite a number of posts here are from bots -- and you respond to em like they are actual people.
So I just asked question if maybe you treat AI responses same way? ;-p
As you clearly unable to destinguish live response from artifical one. Toom stupid. )))
But you, just decided to double down on being stooopid. )))
""And it's pretty hilarious that you've decided to go all in on this moronic argument and claim I "didn't understand" your stupidity.""
Yeah. )))
But you will not understand my clarification above.
And onky will tripple-down on your stupidity. ;-p
Yawn.
//You'd conclude that no matter what I reply.
Because... only stupidity is what you can show? ;-p
Or what??? You percieve possibility -- that you'll say something stupid, AGAIN, but I'll say that it's smart??? )))))))
Or that your petty cretinic tricks (e. g. like naming itself "professor") will work on me, somehow? And will make me fall on my knees before your "superior intelligence"? )))))
Oh, but that is just my superior fantasy (fitting of intellugenr mind) -- you yourself already stated that you know your place, and do not see such thing as possible, right dumb ass? ;-p
//WTF? Sounds like some motivations you imagined I'm having.
Yeah.
Simple suggestion -- "will give you a smart move".
But you, unable to discern it.
It pushing you into state of utter uncertainity -- your "WTF".
Seems, I again said something toom smart, for your cretinic mind. ;-p
//So, yeah... it appears it's you "playing dumb".
More like... slacking need to be careful with what I saying. As you pose as no threat, as utterly cretinic opponent. ;-p
Yawn.
And that is not "appears". That is what I was stating openly. To you directly.
So your try to make it look like some "conclusion" you somehow came to itself.
Looks very funny.
But, continue-continue, cretin.
//Or (far more likely) actually ARE dumb.
"Likely"? ;-p
Means -- you unsure. Because unable to discern level of smartness far beyond yours? ;-p
And here is what Google says to it:
This behavior describes a highly frustrating and irrational style of arguing. When someone says something foolish and immediately, aggressively denies it, observers and opponents can draw several clear conclusions beyond just "utter moronity."
Here is what this behavior typically signals:
Psychological & Behavioral Interpretations
Gaslighting: The person is attempting to distort the truth and make you doubt your own memory or reality.
Extreme Defensiveness: They realize they made a mistake but lack the emotional maturity to admit it, resorting to a loud defense to shut down criticism.
Fragile Ego: Their self-image cannot handle being wrong or looking foolish, so their brain completely rejects the blunder.Impulse
Control Issues: The initial "stupid" comment was an unfiltered reaction, and the screeching denial is another panic-driven impulse.
Logical Failures
Deflection: By shifting the focus to a loud argument about whether they said it, they successfully avoid defending the actual substance of their foolish claim.
Cognitive Dissonance: They are experiencing discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs (e.g., "I am smart" vs. "I just said something dumb") and choose denial to resolve it.In short, it signals a complete lack of accountability, emotional regulation, and intellectual honesty
Qtard: No, dumb ass. I said that quite a number of posts here are from bots -- and you respond to em like they are actual people.
You can cite a comment by a bot and my reply to the bot comment?
Except I mostly ignore comments not made by google accounts. But I can reply to anything I want. Replying doesn't mean I think "this is definitely a real person".
Qtard: But you will not understand my clarification above. And onky will tripple-down on your stupidity. ;-p Yawn.
No, moron. I understand you were referring to Minus FJ's delusion that his blog has so many bot comments. Now that you've clarified. You didn't say you were referring to comments on this blog. And you never pointed to any specific comment and my reply as an example. I doubt you can or will.
Qtard: Or what??? You percieve possibility -- that you'll say something stupid, AGAIN, but I'll say that it's smart??? )))))))
I don't know what comments you might be talking about from me that are "stupid". But you've never said anything I wrote is smart. And I seriously doubt you ever will.
Qtard: Or that your petty cretinic tricks (e. g. like naming itself "professor") will work on me, somehow? And will make me fall on my knees before your "superior intelligence"? )))))
There is zero chance of that happening. I thought you left. You think I changed my display name only to convince you I'm a university professor? Must be the same as when I was trying to convince you I was a judge in a court of law but you didn't fall for it? When neither of those things ever happened?
Qtard: Oh, but that is just my superior fantasy (fitting of intellugenr mind) -- you yourself already stated that you know your place, and do not see such thing as possible, right dumb ass? ;-p
I don't even know wtf you're talking about with "you yourself already stated that you know your place". You can quote where I allegedly said this?
And supposedly (according to you) I said something foolish and then immediately, aggressively denied it? Except I've only ever denied saying something you insisted I did say, but never did. It isn't my fault you keep doing this.
Your claim was that Dolly Parton didn't contribute any money to "transgender research" because she wasn't foolish. Meaning she secretly thought people identifying as a different gender are foolish because transgender is (your belief) a mental illness and not due to their brain anatomy (which it is).
But NOTHING you've written proves Dolly had this (never articulated or written) secret belief. The fact is that all her public statements and actions point to her believing that transgender people are just being their true selves and not believing they are a different sex due to mental illness.
//You can cite a comment by a bot and my reply to the bot comment?
What for?
Yaaaaaawn.
//But I can reply to anything I want. Replying doesn't mean I think "this is definitely a real person".
You know that you just confirmed my claim -- that you are prone to talking with obvious spambots posts... like they are real people and will answer you... just because you feel like it. ;-p (because you are that cretinic?)
//Now that you've clarified. You didn't say you were referring to comments on this blog.
)))))
Yeah, you "professed" that my "stupid comment" was about something else. ))))
Why so? Because you are "professor"(self-proclaimed). And what they do, professors -- they "profess", yes? ;-p
//And you never pointed to any specific comment and my reply as an example. I doubt you can or will.
Yawn.
And what for?
Most of the time (when you not ignored it outrightly) your answer was "I never said it".
So I just grown bored of such exemplar cretinity.
Yaaaaaaaaaawn.
//And will make me fall on my knees before your "superior intelligence"? )))))
//There is zero chance of that happening.
Because... you are cretin (self-admitted with that saud)?
//You think I changed my display name only to convince you I'm a university professor?
Well. You said that. That is YOUR idea here.
Cretinic as it is.
You must be thinking that people do their business cards, and reveal their positions and honorifics on the net.
Because they wanna CONVINCE people that they deserve that titles??b
//But you've never said anything I wrote is smart. And I seriously doubt you ever will.
You are very observant, cretin. )))
To got such a spot-in understanding.
After how long? A year?
As I gave myself such a workout -- to reveal cretinity of your claims and behavior in general.
It FINNALLY came through your thick scull. ;-p
But, what conclusion you came to? )))
//I don't even know wtf you're talking about with "you yourself already stated that you know your place".
Ah.
No.
No conclusion.
Still same cretinic "I dunno", "wtf" and etc.
Yaaaawn.
//And supposedly (according to you) I said something foolish and then immediately, aggressively denied it?
Oh.
Yet one spark... of (non)understanding.
//Except I've only ever denied saying something you insisted I did say, but never did.
Yaaawn.
And cretinic denial.
Even when it copy-pasted excerpts from your previous comment here?
Well, rethorical question.
I already know about such your cretinic habit. ;-p
Change it to what? I thought you were predicting that El Sayed would (somehow) pass by himself a law that said Sharia Law has to be followed. And that donald trump would sign it for some reason. But now you seem to be saying republicans should pass a law that says that can't happen, but aren't. So now you're worried about republicans favoring Sharia law? Your arguments don't even make any sense.
//You can cite a comment by a bot and my reply to the bot comment?
Qtard: What for? Yaaaaaawn.
As proof that what you assert actually happened. I don't even know what comments you're talking about. Obviously none, given your refusal to point to even one.
//But I can reply to anything I want. Replying doesn't mean I think "this is definitely a real person".
Qtard: You know that you just confirmed my claim -- that you are prone to talking with obvious spambots posts... like they are real people and will answer you... just because you feel like it. ;-p (because you are that cretinic?)
I did not confirm your claim. I denied it. I just said I don't write replies thinking every comment was definitely made by a real person. If I see a false claim and want to refute it, why can't I? Regardless of who made it (bot or person) and if they will reply or not?
//Now that you've clarified. You didn't say you were referring to comments on this blog.
Qtard: Yeah, you "professed" that my "stupid comment" was about something else. ))))
Exactly. I assumed you were talking about me posting AI generated replies. Not replying to what you say are AI generated comments. Though you refuse to cite any. So I'll assume there aren't any that you even suspect. Given how simple it would be for you to cite just one. But you won't.
//And you never pointed to any specific comment and my reply as an example. I doubt you can or will.
Qtard: Yawn. And what for? Most of the time (when you not ignored it outrightly) your answer was "I never said it". So I just grown bored of such exemplar cretinity.
Because you keep saying I said (and meant) things I never did. Like just now when you (falsely) said I confirmed your claim that I am "prone to talking with obvious spambots posts... like they are real people and will answer you". When that never happened.
//And will make me fall on my knees before your "superior intelligence"? )))))
//There is zero chance of that happening.
Qtard: Because... you are cretin (self-admitted with that saud)?
No. And there was no "self-admitted" that happened.
//You think I changed my display name only to convince you I'm a university professor?
Qtard: Well. You said that. That is YOUR idea here. Cretinic as it is.
It isn't my idea. That's your idea.
Qtard: You must be thinking that people do their business cards, and reveal their positions and honorifics on the net.
A blogger display name isn't a business card, dipshit. If I was claiming to be an actual professor, I'd put the information about where I was a professor and what my degree was in my profile. And use my real name. But guess what? That information isn't there. And I don't use my real name. The name is made up. Meaning any attached titles are made up as well. Real people have honorifics. Attaching one to an alias is completely meaningless. But it seems you are too stupid to understand.
If I called myself "Count Chocula", you'd think I was claiming to be an actual count? I bet you would. Due to you being that stupid.
Qtard: Because they wanna CONVINCE people that they deserve that titles??b
No.
//I don't even know wtf you're talking about with "you yourself already stated that you know your place".
Qtard: Ah. No. No conclusion. Still same cretinic "I dunno", "wtf" and etc. Yaaaawn.
What am I supposed to say when you babble about things that never happened?
//Except I've only ever denied saying something you insisted I did say, but never did.
Qtard: Yaaawn. And cretinic denial. Even when it copy-pasted excerpts from your previous comment here?
Except that never happened. You only say it happened. You did copy and paste excerpts from my comments, but they've never proven I ever wrote anything and then later (or immediately) denied writing it.
Minus: She perjured herself...
She didn't.
Gemini: The Core Allegation...
The Deposition: During a 2022 civil deposition in her lawsuits against Donald Trump, Carroll stated that she had not received outside financial support or funding for her legal battles.
The Disclosure: Carroll's attorneys later informed the trial judge and Trump's legal team that a nonprofit organization funded by billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman had actually covered a portion of her legal fees and expenses. Her legal team stated she was initially unaware of the specific expense coverage.
Judicial Review: The presiding judge, Lewis Kaplan, previously examined the disclosure to determine if Carroll's statements undermined her credibility or constituted false testimony, ultimately concluding that she had been credible and that the clarification was properly disclosed before trial.🛑
🥸FYI, the DOJ looking into possibly filing perjury charges will go NOWHERE.
Via Gemini...
🤖Why Charges Are Unlikely.
The High Bar for Perjury: To charge E. Jean Carroll, prosecutors would have to prove she deliberately and knowingly lied in her deposition, rather than simply being confused or misinformed about how her lawyers were being paid.
The Legality of Litigation Funding: Financing a lawsuit through a nonprofit is a common and legal practice. Proving that Reid Hoffman’s funding crossed the line into a criminal conspiracy or illegal campaign contribution requires showing an explicit agreement to break tax or election laws, rather than just a shared desire to see Trump lose a court case.
The Legal Advice Defense: Both Carroll and Hoffman relied on professional legal and accounting teams. In federal cases, showing that a person followed the advice of their lawyers generally defeats the claim that they had the "criminal intent" necessary to commit fraud or perjury.
👉The True Purpose of the Investigation.
Because a conviction is legally unlikely, many political and legal analysts argue that the primary goal of the probe is not actually a trial. Instead, the investigation itself serves other purposes...
Political Distraction: The existence of a "criminal inquiry" allows Trump and his allies to publicly claim that the civil judgments against him were part of a corrupt, corruptly funded plot.
Chilling Effect: The probe sends a strong message to other wealthy donors and nonprofits. By tying Hoffman up in federal subpoenas, grand juries, and massive legal bills, it signals that opposing Trump legally carries severe personal and financial risks.🛑
//Except that never happened. You only say it happened. You did copy and paste excerpts from my comments, but they've never proven I ever wrote anything and then later (or immediately) denied writing it.
Bu-ga-gah.
That's why you ARE cretin.
Having cretinuc idea that such cretinic retort will work in me.
Such a cretinic denial of OBJECTIVE FACTS.
But your reaction and thus time will be "wut objective facts... I dunno... wtf" it blinked. )))
But you continue-continue. cretin.
//
Qtard: Ah. No. No conclusion. Still same cretinic "I dunno", "wtf" and etc. Yaaaawn.
//What am I supposed to say when you babble about things that never happened?
Your mind tells you "it never happened"? ;-p
But that is -- known mental issue. Histerical blindness.
So, if you really unable to see it -- your own words, recognize em as yours.
Then you are bina fide crazy.
Congrats, cretin. You got promotion into crazy cretin.
And that is just from your own confession.
Either.
You are just dumb stooopid. And borderline crazy cretin.
If you really see your own words, but jyst lying about not seeing em %^P
When framing this as a mechanism for "not seeing unwanted information," you are looking at the classic psychodynamic model of defense mechanisms.
Here is an elaboration on how the brain unconsciously blocks out traumatic, distressing, or overwhelming visual data.
1. The Core Concept: Unconscious Defense Mechanism
In psychology, the primary concept behind this is somatic conversion—where the brain "converts" unbearable emotional distress, conflict, or trauma into a physical symptom.
The "Unwanted" Stimulus: The individual witnesses or anticipates something profoundly shocking, forbidden, or psychologically threatening (e.g., witnessing a violent act, a severe moral transgression, or experiencing an overwhelming panic attack).
The Brain's Resolution: To protect the conscious mind from shattering under the weight of this "unwanted information," the brain unconsciously cuts off the conscious awareness of sight. In essence, the mind decides: "If I cannot see it, it cannot hurt me," or "I refuse to look at this."
2. Is the Person "Faking It"?
No. It is crucial to distinguish conversion disorder from malingering (faking an illness for personal gain).For the individual experiencing functional blindness, the vision loss is completely involuntary and entirely real.They are not consciously choosing to close their eyes or pretend they cannot see; their brain is actively suppressing the visual processing at a level below their conscious awareness
//Qtard: Because they wanna CONVINCE people that they deserve that titles??b
//No
That was your idea. Your own words -- "to convince you I'm a university professor?"
So now you taking it back? After I revealed how stooopid such question is. ;-p
Or... your retort will be... let me guess... wait-wait, give me more time... it's so hard thing to profess....
naaaah )))))
it'll be -- "I never written it", AGAIN???
Ta-dam!
PS Or... I would not bet on it, but it could be demonstration of a speck of non-cretinity -- if you'd just try to ignore it. ;-p
But...
//If I called myself "Count Chocula", you'd think I was claiming to be an actual count? I bet you would. Due to you being that stupid.
"Tom Soyer and Hecklberry Fin adventures" by Mark Twain
Chapter when they was on a raft with a duke, and a prince. ;-p
//If I was claiming to be an actual professor, I'd put the information about where I was a professor and what my degree was in my profile. And use my real name.
Just now.
With this words
You just admitted being fake. ;-p
Just SAME as that "son of duke" and "prince" in famous text of Twain mentioned above.
//But it seems you are too stupid to understand.
That you are utter loser whose only possibility to feel good -- pretend being someone smart. ;-p
No, I didn't understoid it...
naaaah. )))))
BTW
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck and Jim encounter two con artists who board their raft claiming to be a duke and the lost dauphin of France in Chapter 19. Although Huck realizes they are frauds, he and Jim play along to keep the peace while the duo remains on the raft through Chapter 31
////You can cite a comment by a bot and my reply to the bot comment?
Qtard: What for? Yaaaaaawn.
//As proof that what you assert actually happened.
Because you are cretin who are toom stooopid to read through comments thread to find it out itself?
Ah, sorry-sorry, you are cretin who cannot discern -- which post was made by bot. ;-p
So, you asking for my help?
//I did not confirm your claim. I denied it. I just said I don't write replies thinking every comment was definitely made by a real person. If I see a false claim and want to refute it, why can't I?
"Refuting" claim of a spambot?
Which clearly shows that you cretinicly dunno what spambots is -- that that is their UTTER WHOLE PURPOSE -- to make stupid people to respond to em.
So. Direct answer to your question is -- yes, you can, if you are cretin.
//Qtard: Yeah, you "professed" that my "stupid comment" was about something else. ))))
//Exactly. I assumed you were talking about me posting AI generated replies.
Exactly. Your confession. Yawn.
Post a Comment